Title
Sunset View Condominium Corp. vs. Campos, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 52361
Decision Date
Apr 27, 1981
Sunset View Condominium Corp. sued unit assignees for unpaid assessments. SC ruled purchasers not shareholders until full payment; regular courts, not SEC, have jurisdiction. Cases remanded for trial.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 52361)

Facts:

The consolidated petitions arose from two collection suits filed by Sunset View Condominium Corporation, the condominium corporation managing the Sunset View Condominium Project at 2230 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, and holder of title to the common and limited common areas, against two assignees of condominium units and the presiding judge of the trial courts. In G.R. No. 52361 the defendant Aguilar-Bernares Realty, assignee of unit “Solana” from La Perla Commercial, Incorporated, which in turn bought on installment from Tower Builders, Inc., was sued by plaintiff by complaint dated June 22, 1979 in Civil Case No. 7303‑P, Court of First Instance, Branch XXX, for unpaid assessments; the defendant moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of jurisdiction and the trial judge granted the motion on December 11, 1979, holding that the defendant was a “holder of a separate interest” under Republic Act No. 4726 and thus a shareholder of the condominium corporation and that the controversy was within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the motion for reconsideration was denied. In G.R. No. 52524 the defendant Lim Siu Leng, assignee of unit “Alegria” by assignment from Alfonso Uy who had a Contract to Buy and Sell with Tower Builders, Inc., was sued by amended complaint dated July 16, 1979 in Civil Case No. 14127, City Court of Pasay City, for collection of assessments and insurance premiums amounting to P6,168.06; the defendant moved to dismiss contending she was automatically a shareholder under Section 2, Republic Act No. 4726 and that the dispute was intra‑corporate and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities & Exchange Commission under Section 5, P.D. No. 902‑A; the City Court initially denied the motion, the defendant appealed pursuant to Section 10, Rule 40, to the Court of First Instance where the respondent judge ultimately dismissed the appeal, reversed the lower court and ordered the parties to ventilate their controversy with the Securities & Exchange Commission in an order dated December 14, 1979, and the petitioner filed these petitions for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge; the petitions were consolidated and decided by this Court on April 27, 1981.

Issues:

Is a purchaser of a condominium unit who has not fully paid the purchase price automatically a shareholder of the condominium corporation under Republic Act No. 4726? Is the regular court or the Securities & Exchange Commission vested with jurisdiction to hear collection suits for assessments levied by a condominium corporation against purchasers who have not fully paid for their units?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.